• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Offering Poor Value, Obamacare Exchanges Have Become Medicaid-like Ghettos

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
“To moderate premium spikes, insurers have done what Medicaid managed-care plans do: Narrow networks. Consultants at McKinsey note that three-quarters of exchange plans in 2017 will have no out-of-network coverage, except in emergency cases. And those provider networks themselves are incredibly narrow: one-third fewer specialists than the average employer plan, and hospital networks continuing to shrink. In short, exchange coverage looks nothing like the employer plans that more affluent Americans have come to know and like.”

So, we're back to a two tier system, only it's a lot more expensive for the patients.

In case folks have forgotten, 95% of poor people without medical insurance were able to get care from city and county health systems before Obamacare. They didn't have to enroll for it and didn't pay anything under most circumstances. In those states that did not expand Medicaid for Obamacare this is still where very poor people get their care.

Obamacare Exchanges -- Enrollment Is Depressed by Their High Cost & Poor Value | National Review
 
LowDown said:
“To moderate premium spikes, insurers have done what Medicaid managed-care plans do: Narrow networks. Consultants at McKinsey note that three-quarters of exchange plans in 2017 will have no out-of-network coverage, except in emergency cases. And those provider networks themselves are incredibly narrow: one-third fewer specialists than the average employer plan, and hospital networks continuing to shrink. In short, exchange coverage looks nothing like the employer plans that more affluent Americans have come to know and like.”

So, we're back to a two tier system, only it's a lot more expensive for the patients.

In case folks have forgotten, 95% of poor people without medical insurance were able to get care from city and county health systems before Obamacare. They didn't have to enroll for it and didn't pay anything under most circumstances. In those states that did not expand Medicaid for Obamacare this is still where very poor people get their care.

Obamacare Exchanges -- Enrollment Is Depressed by Their High Cost & Poor Value | National Review
Click to expand...

Don't forget that many people "enroll" because it's the law. They'll be hit with a sizeable penalty, if they don't. So when someone touts the "large enrollment" as proof of success, we have to remember that enrollment numbers are meaningless, when the law forces people to enroll.
 
JumpinJack said:
Don't forget that many people "enroll" because it's the law. They'll be hit with a sizeable penalty, if they don't. So when someone touts the "large enrollment" as proof of success, we have to remember that enrollment numbers are meaningless, when the law forces people to enroll.
Click to expand...

What that means, of course, is that at least in part, the number of uninsured before Obamacare were voluntarily so.
 
Q: How much will the “tax” penalty be for going without health insurance?

A: The minimum assessment will be $695 per person (but no more than $2,085 per family) in 2016, when fully phased in. The amount can be higher depending on income. But there are exemptions for low-income persons and others.

Refusal to Pay

The law prohibits the IRS from seeking to put anybody in jail or seizing their property for simple refusal to pay the tax. The law says specifically that taxpayers “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty” for failure to pay, and also that the IRS cannot file a tax lien (a legal claim against such things as homes, cars, wages and bank accounts) or a “levy” (seizure of property or bank accounts).

The law says that the IRS will collect the tax “in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68” of the tax code. That part of the tax code provides for imposing an additional penalty “equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected.” It also requires written notices to the taxpayer, and provides for court proceedings.

How Much Is the Obamacare ‘Tax’?
 
Harshaw said:
What that means, of course, is that at least in part, the number of uninsured before Obamacare were voluntarily so.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Unless someone forced them to be uninsured...that if they got insurance, they would have to pay a large penalty.
 
LowDown said:
“To moderate premium spikes, insurers have done what Medicaid managed-care plans do: Narrow networks. Consultants at McKinsey note that three-quarters of exchange plans in 2017 will have no out-of-network coverage, except in emergency cases. And those provider networks themselves are incredibly narrow: one-third fewer specialists than the average employer plan, and hospital networks continuing to shrink. In short, exchange coverage looks nothing like the employer plans that more affluent Americans have come to know and like.”

So, we're back to a two tier system, only it's a lot more expensive for the patients.

In case folks have forgotten, 95% of poor people without medical insurance were able to get care from city and county health systems before Obamacare. They didn't have to enroll for it and didn't pay anything under most circumstances. In those states that did not expand Medicaid for Obamacare this is still where very poor people get their care.

Obamacare Exchanges -- Enrollment Is Depressed by Their High Cost & Poor Value | National Review
Click to expand...

It's better expensive for the patients than for the government. They will get insurance for next time.
 
JumpinJack said:
Not at all. Unless someone forced them to be uninsured...that if they got insurance, they would have to pay a large penalty.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense.
 
Harshaw said:
This doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Your comment only made sense, if being "uninsured" is for the same reason that being "insured" is (that is...they are penalized if they aren't).

You were equating the two, but they are only the same if they are punished if they do what they WANT (get insured, if they are uninsured; become uninsured, if they are insured under Obamacare because they are forced to).
 
Harshaw said:
What that means, of course, is that at least in part, the number of uninsured before Obamacare were voluntarily so.
Click to expand...

But if we believe in liberty, should that not be their right? If they choose to bankrupt themselves, who are we to say they have no right to do so? That is unless the law mandates that those who make bad decisions and choices will suffer no serious consequences because the rest of us are required to pick up the tab.

Who out there is qualified to dictate to me what insurance I must have or fine me if I do not have it? If I choose not to go to the doctor and not go to the hospital and allow nature to take its course, who is privy to say I cannot choose that? And who is ordained with the wisdom to say this this person does not have to pay and this other person has to pay for the first one?

Yes a moral society takes care of the helpless. It offers a hand up to those who need it. But a moral society does not make dependents of its people and it does not create a class of lords who make the rules for how we are required to live our lives and a larger class of serfs required to follow them.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But if we believe in liberty, should that not be their right?
Click to expand...

Of course it should be.

To argue that people should be required to carry health insurance is to argue that the government owns everyone's body.

Which is currently the argument in legal force.
 
JumpinJack said:
Your comment only made sense, if being "uninsured" is for the same reason that being "insured" is (that is...they are penalized if they aren't).

You were equating the two, but they are only the same if they are punished if they do what they WANT (get insured, if they are uninsured; become uninsured, if they are insured under Obamacare because they are forced to).
Click to expand...

No, you yourself said that enrollment numbers jumped only because people were required to carry insurance.

Which means previously to that, part of the uninsured were people who were voluntarily so.
 
I know many people that have been forced to discontinue medication and seek holistic treatment because their deductibles are so high they cant afford treatment.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But if we believe in liberty, should that not be their right? If they choose to bankrupt themselves, who are we to say they have no right to do so? That is unless the law mandates that those who make bad decisions and choices will suffer no serious consequences because the rest of us are required to pick up the tab.

Who out there is qualified to dictate to me what insurance I must have or fine me if I do not have it? If I choose not to go to the doctor and not go to the hospital and allow nature to take its course, who is privy to say I cannot choose that? And who is ordained with the wisdom to say this this person does not have to pay and this other person has to pay for the first one?

Yes a moral society takes care of the helpless. It offers a hand up to those who need it. But a moral society does not make dependents of its people and it does not create a class of lords who make the rules for how we are required to live our lives and a larger class of serfs required to follow them.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is EMTLA in a nut shell. Bop on into the ER, get treated at no charge and let others (all others regardless of income) pick up the costs. Much like shoplifting - the retailer simply considers that expense (loss of inventory and sales revenue) a cost of sale. Those that do pay are "forced" to make to up that difference through price hikes.
 
Harshaw said:
What that means, of course, is that at least in part, the number of uninsured before Obamacare were voluntarily so.
Click to expand...

They were. I knew people who elected to not have health insurance when it was available to them simply because they wanted to spend their money on other things, like cars, clothes, etc. and then played victim when they were forced into bankruptcy because of it when a hospitalization occurred.
 
VanceMack said:
I know many people that have been forced to discontinue medication and seek holistic treatment because their deductibles are so high they cant afford treatment.
Click to expand...

And that's before facing the Death Panel.
 
backpacker said:
They were. I knew people who elected to not have health insurance when it was available to them simply because they wanted to spend their money on other things, like cars, clothes, etc. and then played victim when they were forced into bankruptcy because of it when a hospitalization occurred.
Click to expand...

That's the risk they voluntarily took.
 
Harshaw said:
That's the risk they voluntarily took.
Click to expand...

I don't know of anybody who would argue otherwise, except perhaps those that think they are entitled to live beyond their means.
 
LowDown said:
In short, exchange coverage looks nothing like the employer plans that more affluent Americans have come to know and like.”

So, we're back to a two tier system, only it's a lot more expensive for the patients.
Click to expand...

Exchanges are markets. Which means they explicitly price for the consumer some of the primary cost drivers of insurance plans.

In most markets you can buy narrow network plans or you can buy broad network plans. You can buy plans that don't offer out-of-network coverage or you can buy plans that do. You can buy plans with high deductibles or plans with low deductibles.

Plans that do some combination of limiting networks, restricting out-of-network coverage, and offering higher deductibles will be cheaper. Those that do some combination of the opposite will be more expensive. Because those things cost more. One guess which kinds of plans are more popular when people have to vote with their wallets.

This assumption that employer-based coverage is better because people are more likely to be locked into the most expensive option (diverting their wage increases into health insurance) without choice or the ability to see how different attributes of their plans affect their costs is odd.
 
The problem is that the entitlement-addicted dregs don't want to pay a dime for health care. These are the people crowing for single payer. Why the hell should they pay for stuff like health, when the freakin' cell phone bill is due?

Obamacare hoodwinked these people into believing how cheap it is, in general. So the sheeple all bought the cheapest plan available ('cause...you know...the cell phone bill takes priority) and found out that they should have bought the "Macy's" plan, but instead bought the "K-Mart" plan. I know first-hand from a few friends of mine that have it, the K-Mart plan covers very, very little. But hey...they got it, so Lord Obama can crow from the mountain about how many people are "insured." The actuality is that hundreds of thousands of people have crappy coverage through Obamacare, and it's only going to get worse.
 
I use to always post Healthy Howard info. I'll just summarize.

One of their findings was that when they started marketing to people, they found many applicants already met other government program requirements and were signed up for those instead.
Why not make those opt-out and call it a day, instead of obama-care?
 
Mach said:
Why not make those opt-out and call it a day, instead of obama-care?
Click to expand...

Because everyone knew from Day 1 that Obamacare would only survive (this long) if Mother Government forced enrollment. Imagine the millions of people who would elect NOT to use this abortion of a law. That's hundreds of millions of dollars not paying into it. If just the dregs enrolled, Obamacare would have collapsed within six months.
 
I thought dems were all about busting the wealthy. Why don't they bust up the health insurance companies and the stranglehold on physician education, etc. Tear down that wall democrats!

You libs rail on Trump for wanting to build a wall that helps enforce existing laws, but then you erect walls to help wealthy professionals in a terrifically overpriced market. Why? Head up ass. (not meant to be pro trump...just pointing out the misguided)
 
Mach said:
I thought dems were all about busting the wealthy.
Click to expand...
Only the ones who refuse to swear eternal loyalty to the DNC.

Why don't they bust up the health insurance companies and the stranglehold on physician education, etc.
Click to expand...
Kickbacks and under-the-table deals. There's too much money in there to just get rid of them.

Remember kids! It's OK to be crooked, dirty and dishonest as long as you got a "D" behind your name!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom